American Christian pastors saying women shouldn't vote

@RitaIncognita if what you say is so clear as you say it is, why is it that only in 1961 (Torcaso v. Watkins ) did the Supreme Court rule that a ban on atheists holding office was unconstitutional? Shouldn't that have been self evident since the beginning?

And till the late 1950s judges were still relying on biblical interpretations that God meant for the races to be separate in their rulings which punished inter-racial couples?

Remember that the late Charlie Kirk, the community college drop out who made a career out of trolling clueless college students but got his ass handed out to him at Oxford and Cambridge, repeatedly said he doesn't believe in the separation of Church and State, and his view is becoming more mainstream. He is becoming a bit of a martyr since he was shot and killed by that lunatic.

Again, think of the fact that admitting to being non religious would be political suicide for any politician in the US. That's quite the biggie. I think we too often forget how backward the US are on this, and how much more advanced many European countries are on this

By the same logic, I presume you would have no objection if someone asked you: "have you killed and tortured those who disagree with you?". You know, the question mark suggests a desire to know, not sure how else to do it in English...

@anyolddinosaur Yes you do sound like a militant atheist. I dont belong to any church but I can recognise what is good and bad about different religions. You are refusing to acknowledge any good in any religion - and that makes you as dogmatic as any evangelical Christian.

???????
Could I please kindly ask you to explain what on Earth led you to this conclusion??

I criticised Dawkins, said I find him too aggressive and arrogant, I said that my approach is I don't care what other people believe as long as they don't impose their beliefs, and your understanding is that I "refuse to acknowledge any good in religion"???????

Where, where would I have said that?

Have I made any generalisation on believers?

Have I said or implied that nothing good can ever come out of religion?

Where would I have said any of that??

@SerendipityJane Would you be offended to be invited to a wedding in a church ?

?????????

What makes you say that??

There is a difference between a civilised disagreement, and making up the most outlandish bullshit, putting in people's mouth the exact opposite of what they had said.

So now saying that religions are human inventions, that they were historically rooted in misogyny because those were the times, pointing out factual, undeniable examples of how holy books have been used to justify slavery segregation etc, pointing out the inconsistencies in holy books makes me... a militant atheist who refuses to acknowledge any good in religion and who'd be offended if invited to a religious wedding???

@Imnobody4 Agreed. Dawkins has also been misogynistic in the past. Do you remember the "Dear Muslina" story, where she berated a woman who said she was approached or harassed (I don't remember the details) at an atheist conference?

By the way, has anything I have said made you think I am a "militant atheist" comparable to Dawkins?

My approach is, very banally, I don't care what you think, as long as you don't impose it on anyone else.

Dawkins' approach is more or less: you are wrong and I am smarter than you.

Most philosophers are atheists, but dislike Dawkins and the like precisely because they are arrogant and ignorant on many of the topics they talk about.

It may look like it to us, because we have different views on how the worlds is compared to them. They certainly would not have seen themselves as misogynist as we do.

Yes. Which is why I am more interested in improving things now, than in casting moral judgements on past events and past civilisations.

It's also why I find all the arguments about religious morality bs: because the religious cannot justify all the past horrors committed in the name of religion, unless they introduce an element of moral relativity which clashes with the very foundation of absolute, divine morality. It is funny to hear Christians tying themselves up in knots to justify slavery in the past, for example

@SerendipityJane Yes, but it's not that it's the Romans' fault, as if the Romans were misogynistic while other civilisations weren't.

Religions are human inventions, so of course they will reflect the times in which they were created.

@RitaIncognita Freedom of religion in the United States also means freedom from religion. There have been many court cases that support this freedom, including the one in which the Supreme Court held that requiring prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

I disagree. The historical context is different, and it shows. It is no coincidence that the constitutions of some US states still ban atheists from holding office. The bans are unenforceable after a Supreme Court ruling, but they're still there.

In fact, if we move from theory to practice, it is no coincidence that a non-religious politician stands virtually zero chance of being elected in the US